I Forgive You – Part 1
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, “I repent,” forgive him [Luke 17:3-4].
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
There is this concept which is habitually proclaimed from the pulpits, that it is incumbent on every Christian to forgive those who wrong them. In and of itself the concept is Biblical, and I heartily give my “Amen!” to it. Thus far we hear nothing which is to be gainsaid.
But then in ignorance the leaven of false teaching is smuggled in unawares. An addendum is added to the effect that it matters not whether the person doing the wrong is sorry for his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t think it is wrong, no matter. We are obligated to forgive him!
Various proof-texts are summoned to the witness stand to testify to the validity of this addendum. One example is to quote, “Thou shalt not judge!” If we accept such an interpretation of those Biblical words, we are left with the inability to share the Gospel because the Gospel by definition judges sinners. So I think we’ll pass on such an interpretation.
Consider another example. In Matthew 18:21-22 Peter asked the Lord Jesus, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus instructed Peter to forgive him not just up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times. This teaching is held up as proof that Jesus didn’t require repentance first, before a child of God can forgive anyone.
If all we had to go by was the Matthew 18 account, we would not know the context accurately. We might well reach the interpretation just given, apart from a context. However, we have the same subject addressed by Jesus in Luke 17, which we quoted at the start of this study.
In Matthew 18 Peter asked the Lord for clarification on how often to forgive someone. Peter asked nothing about whether or not the person was sorry. That issue isn’t addressed in Matthew 18. Don’t take my word for it. Read the account in your Bible and see for yourself.
To conclude from the Matthew 18 account that Jesus didn’t answer a question Peter failed to ask, this is circular reasoning. It has a formal title in Logic 101: argumentum e silentio or the argument from silence. Someone didn’t refer to Topic X, so Topic X must be okay, or Topic X must not apply, etc. The argument is recognized as invalid and false by all logical persons!
In the case of Matthew 18 this argument states that Jesus didn’t require repentance on the part of the wrongdoer, so repentance isn’t required for forgiveness. But as we noted already, Peter didn’t ask about the wrongdoer’s part in the equation. He only asked about the part of the person wronged. Hence Jesus only taught him the part required of the person wronged.
Let’s call it a day and take our leave at this time. Converse with the Lord Jesus about the subject before going to sleep. We’ll meet together again tomorrow.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Genesis: Volume 1 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
No comments have been added yet.
